Archaeological Report No. 21 EARLY MARKSVILLE PHASES IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A STUDY OF CULTURE CONTACT DYNAMICS EDWIN ALAN TOTH MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY In Cooperation with THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI SURVEY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY Jackson 1988 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY Archaeological Report No. 21 Patricia Kay Galloway Series Editor Elbert R. Hilliard Director The Mississippi Department of Archives and History is in­ debted to the Lower Mississippi Survey, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni­ versity, both for permission to publish this work and for a grant to aid in its publication. LMS LOWER MISSISSIPPI SURVEY This publication is essentially unchanged from the original dissertation prepared by the author in 1977. The editor has adjusted punctuation, removed typographic errors. ex­ punged stylistic infelicities, and made the manuscript con­ form to series style. Typeset by Altamese Wash Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-620-839 ISBN: 0-938896-54-7 Copyright 1988 Mississippi Department of Archives and History CONTENTS Foreword by Samuel O. Brookes ix Author's Preface. 1977 xv Abstract xvii Introduction 3 Chapter I. Requisite Background Perspectives for a Marksville Synthesis 9 The Geographical Setting 9 History of Marksville Period Archaeology 13 Some Thoughts on Method and Theory 16 Chapter II. The Tchefuncte Base 19 Lake Cormorant Considerations 19 Tchefuncte Culture _ 21 Chapter III. The Hopewellian Intrusion 29 Conical Mounds 29 Ceramic Parallels 42 Hopewellian Status-Related Artifacts 50 Imported Copper Products 51 Local Duplication in Clay 56 Exotic Raw Materials _ 65 The Dynamics of Hopewellian Contact 70 Chapter N. Early Marksville Synthesis 74 La Plant Phase 74 La Plant 74 St. Johns 77 Other La Plant Phase Components 81 The La Plant Ceramic SeL 83 Turnage Phase 83 Helena Phase 83 Helena Crossing 85 Bowie 87 Burns and De Rossetts 88 Moore 88 Other Helena Components 88 The Helena Ceramic Set 89 Dorr Phase 89 Dorr and Oliver 91 iv Archaeological Report No. 21, 1988 Aderholt 93 Acree 93 Rochdale 96 Dickerson 99 Fant and Rudyard 105 Aust #2 107 Vaught 107 Allen #4 107 Brahan #2 109 Martin #1 112 Norflett 116 Boyd 118 Swan Lake 119 Eagle's Nest #1 120 Tackett 120 Norman 124 Yandle 129 Other Dorr Components 129 The Dorr Ceramic Set. 130 Twin Lakes Phase 132 Twin Lakes 132 White 134 Blue Lake 135 Denton 135 Beaver Dam Place 135 Other Twin Lakes Components 135 The Twin Lakes Ceramic Set.. 135 Kirk Phase 136 Kirk 138 Silver Lake 141 Shields 141 Joe Smith 142 Boles Lake 142 Armstrong 144 Gray 144 Other Kirk Components 144 The Kirk Ceramic Set 145 Anderson Landing Phase 145 Anderson Landing 148 Trammel 150 Mabin 150 Lake George 151 Spanish Fort 152 Erickson 152 Reaver Brown and Love 153 Bee Lake 153 Tchula Lake 153 laketown 153 Montgomery 155 Polk 156 Murphy 156 Contents v Palusha Creek 156 Beaked Bird 156 Phillipi 157 Other Anderson Landing Components 157 The Anderson Landing Ceramic Set... 159 Point Lake Phase 159 Point Lake 161 Mansford Plantation 166 Transylvania 173 Hill Bayou 173 Panther Lake 173 Lake Place 174 Canebrake 174 Kimbal. 175 Other Point Lake Components 175 The Point Lake Ceramic Set 176 Grand Gulf Phase 176 Grand Gulf 178 Catledge 181 Pumpkin Lake 181 Blueskin Creek 181 Foster 181 Sardine 181 Sun Oil 182 Other Grand Gulf Components 182 The Grand Gulf Ceramic Set.. 182 Marksville Phase 184 Marksville 184 McGuffee 189 Crooks 189 Coles Island 191 Wiley 193 Monda 193 Mayer Place 193 Saline Point 194 Other Marksville Components 195 The Marksville Ceramic Set 195 Smithfield Phase 196 Smithfield 196 Monks 203 Medora 207 Bayou Goula 209 Other Smithfield Components 209 The Smithfield Ceramic Set 209 Conclusion 211 Bibliography 215 Appendix I: Early Marksville Types and Varieties 223 vi Archaeological Report No. 21, 1988 Appendix II: Standard State Site Numbers for Sites Mentioned in the Text 235 LIST OF TABLES 1. Burial distribution in Marksville Mound 4 35 2. Distribution of status-related artifacts 52 3. Ceramic counts, La Plant site 76 4. Ceramic counts, St. Johns site 78 5. Ceramic counts, New Madrid County, Missouri 82 6. Ceramic counts, Acree site 94 7. Ceramic counts, Rochdale site 97 8. Ceramic counts, Dickerson site 100 9. Ceramic counts, Fant site 105 10. Ceramic counts, Allen #4 109 11. Ceramic counts, Brahan #2 110 12. Ceramic counts, Martin #1 113 13. Ceramics from excavated pits at Martin #1 115 14. Ceramic counts, Norflett 116 15. Ceramic counts, Swan Lake 119 16. Ceramic counts, Tackett 121 17. Ceramic counts, Denton 136 18. Ceramic counts, Kirk 139 19. Ceramic counts, Point Lake 162 20. Ceramic counts, Mansford surface collection 169 21. Ceramic counts, Mansford Test Pit #1 171 22. Ceramic counts, Kimbal 175 23. Typological refinements, early Marksville ceramics 185 24. Ceramic counts, Smithfield surface collections 201 25. Ceramic counts, Smithfield excavated units 204 26. Ceramic counts, Monks 207 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Physiographic map of the Lower Mississippi Valley 10 2. Tchefuncte site distribution 22 3. Conical mound distribution 32 4. Distribution of early Marksville ceramics 43 5. La Plant phase distribution 75 6. Helena phase distribution 84 7. Dorr phase distribution 90 8. Twin Lakes phase distribution 131 9. Kirk phase distribution 137 10. Anderson Landing phase distribution 146 11. Point Lake phase distribution 160 12. Grand Gulf phase distribution 177 13. Marksville phase distribution 183 14. Smithfield phase distribution 197 15. Smithfield site map 198 Contents vii 16. Profiles, Smithfield Test Pit 3 205 17. Profiles, Smithfield Test Pit 4 206 LIST OF PLATES I. Tchefuncte ceramics from Norman 24 II. Lower Valley conical mounds 30 III. Whole vessel comparisons 46 IV. Lower Valley platform pipes 58 V. Lower Valley ceramic figurines 62 VI. Greenstone celts 69 VII. St. Johns ceramics 79 VIII. Dorr and Oliver artifacts 92 IX. Acree artifacts 95 X. Rochdale artifacts 98 XI. Dickerson ceramics 102 XII. Dickerson artifacts 103 XIII. Fant and Rudyard artifacts 106 XIV. Aust #2 and Allen #4 artifacts 108 XV. Brahan #2 ceramics 111 XVI. Martin #1 ceramics 114 XVII. Norflett and Swan Lake artifacts 117 XVIII. Tackett ceramics 122 XIX. Tackett ceramics 123 XX. Norman ceramics 125 XXI. Norman ceramics 127 XXII. Ceramics from selected Twin Lakes sites 133 XXIII. Kirk ceramics 140 XXIV. Boles Lake and Armstrong ceramics 143 XXV. Trammel, Mabin and Lake George ceramics 149 XXVI. Bee Lake, Jaketown, Polk and Murphy ceramics 154 XXVII. Point Lake ceramics 163 XXVIII. Point Lake artifacts 165 XXIX. Mansford artifacts 167 XXX. Ceramics from selected Point Lake sites 172 XXXI. Ceramics from Grand Gulf and related sites 179 XXXII. Marksville artifacts 186 XXXIII. Excavated lithics, Marksville mounds 188 XXXIV. Excavated lithics, Marksville village area 190 XXXV. Marksville phase vessels 192 XXXVI. Smithfield ceramics 199 XXXVII. Smithfield artifacts 202 XXXVIII. Monks, Medora and Bayou Goula ceramics 208 Foreword The summer of 1972 was a very special Stu was not at Fatherland but Dotty time for me. I had been hired along with Byron Gibbens was and she gave us a tour of the site. Inmon by the Mississippi Department of Steve then drove us to the Fatherland lab and Archives and History to conduct an archaeolog­ we met Stu. The afternoon was spent discussing ical survey of Claiborne County, Mississippi. Dr. sites and listening to Stu's tales. I did find time McLemore and Elbert Hilliard seemed pleased to show them the sherds and they agreed with a with their new archaeologists--especially Byron. Marksville designation for all of them. Steve as he didn't wear a beard. Within the next two told me I needed to talk with Alan Toth, a weeks I had charged lobster to the state and had graduate student interested in Marksville. I fi­ gotten arrested for driving a commercial vehicle nally met Alan at the Memphis SEAC meeting on the Natchez Trace Parkway. My career at in 1973. Alan photographed the Grand Gulf MDAH was off to an inauspicious beginning--a vessels and we discussed type/ variety and paste portent of things to come. long into the night. At that time Alan and I Our first discovery in Claiborne County became friends and I started digging through was the raw face of the Grand Gulf mound. A MDAH collections in search of Marksville bulldozer had destroyed roughly two-thirds of sherds for Alan's dissertation. Over the next it. The remaining portion had huge holes dug three years Alan and I corresponded frequently, into it. and it was eroding. It was being visited sent sherds back and forth, and argued and daily by pot hunters, collectors, and curiosity discussed Marksville. seekers, all of whom dug or probed into the As I said, I looked through collections for mound in search of artifacts or "treasure." We sherds to send to Alan. Alan's dissertation was initiated steps to preserve the mound and to to be a synthesis of the Marksville period in the excavate it when our survey was finished. Lower Mississippi Valley. Phillips (1970) had After washing a small sample of sherds done a synthesis of the post Archaic cultures in from the site we drove to Natchez for a bus­ the region; Toth's report would refine and ex­ man's holiday. Stu Neitzel was digging at Fa­ pand the Marksville phases set up by Phillips. therland and Jeff Brain was working at the Ceramics formed the basis for the phases em­ Emerald mound. I wanted them to look at the ployed by both writers. Such an approach was Grand Gulf sherds and offer some ideas on a utilized for several reasons. Ceramic variation couple that had me baffled.